I used to interpret viññāṇa to mean consciousness as basic awareness of something. But I am not sure that the pali term is so basic.In VsM it says that viññāṇa knows more than saññā, thus to me it is more complex than simply being aware:

Perception is like the child without discretion seeing the coin, because it apprehends the mere mode of appearance of the object as blue and so on. Consciousness is like the villager seeing the coin, because it apprehends, the mode of the object as blue, etc., and because it extends further, reaching the penetration of its characteristics. Understanding is like the money changer seeing the coin, because, after apprehending the mode of the object as blue, etc., and extending to the penetration of the characteristics, it extends still further, reaching the manifestation of the path. VsM XIV,5

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

A very interesting topic. The early Nikaya teachings talk of the "stopping of consciousness" or the "cessation of consciousness" as something which is connected with enlightenment, in this life.

The later Nikaya teachings obscure this in various ways, but not completely.

Here are extracts from Sn 733, 734 and 735 [PTS, K.R.Norman.]:

733. "Whatever misery arises, all this is because of consciousness" "Because of the complete ending and stopping of consciousness, there is no arising of misery."

734. "Whatever misery arises, all (that) is because of consciousness. By the stopping of consciousness, there is no arising of misery."

735. "Knowing this danger, that "misery is because of consciousness", by the quiescence of consciousness a bhikkhu is without craving, quenched."

In MN 43.4 it is said that it is not possible to describe the difference between consciousness and wisdom. I understand this to mean that they are both forms of conceptual knowing or understanding. But there is a difference, consciousness is a wrong kind of understanding, while wisdom is a correct form of understanding. So wisdom should be developed, consciousness should be eliminated.

vinasp wrote:I understand this to mean that they are both forms of conceptual knowing or understanding. But there is a difference, consciousness is a wrong kind of understanding, while wisdom is a correct form of understanding. So wisdom should be developed, consciousness should be eliminated.

Thank you for your answer. Is it possible that viññāṇa is a sort of making some sort of separation, a subject-object duality?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

There are also the statements made about consciousness in the context of the five aggregates, for example, SN 22.9:

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, consciousness is impermanent, both of the past andthe future, not to speak of the present. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, theinstructed noble disciple is indifferent towards consciousness of the past;he does not seek delight in consciousness of the future; and he is practisingfor revulsion towards consciousness of the present, for its fading away andcessation."

The same is said of: form, feeling, perception, and volitional-formations.

From: Connected Discourses, Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 867, SN 22.9

--------------------------------------------------------------

My comments on the above passage:

I take "impermanent" to mean that "it" can vanish or disappear, completely and permanently.

I do not think that actual consciousness is meant, but what I call "objectified consciousness", which is a conceptual representation of consciousness, either past, present or future as an object of appropriation.

We can also consider SN 22.50

"But, Sona, those ascetics and brahmins who understand consciousness, itsorigin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation: theseI consider to be ascetics among ascetics and brahmins among brahmins,and these venerable ones, by realizing it for themselves with directknowledge, in this very life enter and abide in the goal of asceticismand the goal of brahminhood."

The same is said of: form, feeling, perception, and volitional formations.

vinasp wrote:The way that leads to the cessation of consciousness? Which path is this?

This is explained in Sammaditthi sutta:

58. "And what is consciousness, what is the origin of consciousness, what is the cessation of consciousness, what is the way leading to the cessation of consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. With the arising of formations there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of consciousness. The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, consciousness is impermanent, both of the past andthe future, not to speak of the present. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, theinstructed noble disciple is indifferent towards consciousness of the past;he does not seek delight in consciousness of the future; and he is practisingfor revulsion towards consciousness of the present, for its fading away andcessation." [SN 22.9 BB.]

In this interpretation the past consciousness is just memory, the future consciousness is just imagination, but the present consciousness is the actual knowing-in-terms-of-self in the ongoing present.

This is my re-working of the above passage:

Bhikkhus, knowing-in-terms-of-self can disappear, this was true in the past, and will be true in the future, it is also true in the present. Seeing this, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is indifferent towards the past knowing-in-terms-of-self; he does not seek delight in future knowing-in-terms- of-self; and he is practising for revulsion towards the knowing-in-terms-of- self of the present, for its fading away and cessation.

[Note: It should probably be "knowing-in-terms-of-I" for the five aggregates.]

There was a very close association between vinnana and atta for those persons who, at the time when the Buddha was teaching, had been brought up in a culture influenced by Upanisadic thought.

From: Identity and Experience, by Sue Hamilton:

"Vinnana, however, has connotations which are both substantive and permanent. Such connotations derive partly from the association in the Upanisads of the Sanskrit term vijnana with Brahman. In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, for example, Brahman is defined as consciousness and bliss. It is cardinal to Upanisadic teaching both that Brahman is permanent and also that it is 'being', sat.

Because it is aso cardinal to Upanisadic teaching that there is a macrocosmic/ microcosmic correspondence between Brahman and atman, it follows that the consciousness, vijnana, of the individual is also permanent and is 'being': it is the essential stuff, both of the individual and the cosmos."[page 84.]

So, for those influenced by Upanisadic thought, atta (self) is closely associated with vinnana (consciousness or knowing).

In MN 38.5 the monk Sati explains his (wrong) view as follows:

"As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another." "What is that consciousness, Sati?" "Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions."

This view is given, in full, in MN 2.8 as follows:

"It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions: but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity."

Vinnana was taken to be the self because it was believed that the act of knowing was performed by the self. Such a knowing, which is assumed to be knowing by a self, will know everything as being related to that assumed self. This is not "knowing and seeing things as they really are."

I guess that is a great observation while it seems to be a little in conflict with Dmytro statement of:

Dmytro wrote:Hi Alex,

Viññāṇa by itself isn't wrong and does not imply duality. Very much depends on how the vinnana interacts with nama-rupa. The vinnana of the Arahant does not have a footing (arammana) in nama-rupa:

As there is an interaction, there is duality. Wouldn't it not possible to that Viññāṇa loses it's vi in reaching Arahantship? As I have no understanding of pali, is the mentioned orignin of the word Viññāṇa like Alex thought?

How ever, there is maybe a important sutta in this regard:

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

As there is an interaction, there is duality. Wouldn't it not possible to that Viññāṇa loses it's vi in reaching Arahantship? As I have no understanding of pali, is the mentioned orignin of the word Viññāṇa like Alex thought?

Thanks for your explaining. I am not sure if the "no" goes just to the question directly (pali translation) or also to the perception leading to the question.

It sill leaves the way open to request "Wouldn't it not possible to that Viññāṇa loses it's vi in reaching Arahantship?". On a deeper level, your translation and the idea of alex are not that different in its meaning.

We have seen that vinnana (consciousness) is said to cease in numerous passages.

But .... on the other hand we have many passages which appear to deny this, For example, MN 22.36

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now."

#1. None of the passages which appear to say that vinnana ceases are talking about actual vinnana.

#2. There are two kinds of vinnana - unliberated and liberated.

Solution #1

Most of the passages which speak of vinnana ceasing are in the context of either the Aggregates or Dependent Origination. It is not clear that actual vinnana is meant in these cases, it could be vinnana as a mental-object of some kind. I prefer this interpretation.

Solution #2

We know that "mind" can be unliberated or liberated. Is the liberated mind of a monk the same mind as before except that it is now liberated - or is it a different mind? Vinnana is a synonym for mind (citta) in many places. Is the liberated vinnana the same as before, or different? It is the same in that it belongs to the same "stream" of the same individual. It is different in that it functions in a different way.

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, consciousness is impermanent, both of the past andthe future, not to speak of the present. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, theinstructed noble disciple is indifferent towards consciousness of the past;he does not seek delight in consciousness of the future; and he is practisingfor revulsion towards consciousness of the present, for its fading away andcessation." [SN 22.9 BB.]

In this interpretation the past consciousness is just memory, the futureconsciousness is just imagination, but the present consciousness is theactual knowing-in-terms-of-self in the ongoing present.